I think you have underestimated the empty weight of the B70. You are referring to B60.

If you add all the new stuff IAF wants, IRST, fusion engine, towed decoy, new navigation, new terrain following radar, new cockpit etc, the weight will increase to 10.5 or even 11T. But there should be a corresponding increase in thrust also. But that reduces fuel fraction even more.

The F-16 B60 and higher cannot do anything without CFTs. They will even have to dog fight with CFTs. Terrible range, terrible acceleration, terrible maneuverability, I don't know why we are even wasting time with this jet.

Click to expand...

The data available on all sources including F-16.net is restricted to B60, so I used that data.

My frnd, B70 is going to be of higher empty weight. do you read and understand English? B70 will have higher thrust engine and more avionics which will make it even heavier than B60. Now stop posting wrong figures and also pls stop making vague comments.

Click to expand...

That's what I told you, it will be heavier because of the CFTs and whatever options we integrate, but it doesn't have the thrust you used in your calculations, because it doesn't have the uprated engines of the B60. So you completely mixed up specs and estimates and made LCA purposely look far better than it actually is. The fact that you assume a better TWR than Rafale alone is completely unrealistic.

That's what I told you, it will be heavier because of the CFTs and whatever options we integrate, but it doesn't have the thrust you used in your calculations, because it doesn't have the uprated engines of the B60. So you completely mixed up specs and estimates and made LCA purposely look far better than it actually is. The fact that you assume a better TWR than Rafale alone is beyond reasonable.

Click to expand...

Brother, as per what you wrote, F-16 with higher empty weight and lower thrust will come out to be worse than what I posted. But it is very clearly stated by LM that B70 will have 142KN thrust engines. The B60 engine is capable of 145KN but reduced to 132KN. To overcome the problems of Leh, LM has proposed the 142KN thrust variant for B70. B60 onwards, the empty weight includes the weight of CFts which is 900lbs or 400kgs. That takes the empty weight to 9980kgs.

Brother, as per what you wrote, F-16 with higher empty weight and lower thrust will come out to be worse than what I posted.

Click to expand...

Of course, if you calculate it correctly it has to be worse for the B70, compared to the B60, but not compared to an LCA with it's official specs. We know that LCA was not able to achieve it's development goal of a TWR of 1, just as speed or the flight envelope as a whole will be limited due to overweight and lack of thrust. That's why IAF wanted the MK2 with credible changes to increase flight performance. These changes however are not part of the MK1A, because just as the Block 70 the upgrade is mainly aimed on radar, EW and avionics.

Of course, if you calculate it correctly it has to be worse for the B70, compared to the B60, but not compared to an LCA with it's official specs. We know that LCA was not able to achieve it's development goal of a TWR of 1, just as speed or the flight envelope as a whole will be limited due to overweight and lack of thrust. That's why IAF wanted the MK2 with credible changes to increase flight performance. These changes however are not part of the MK1A, because just as the Block 70 the upgrade is mainly aimed on radar, EW and avionics.

Click to expand...

I would like to correct you here. The upgrade includes- reduction of weight by one ton ( I seriously doubt this claim, about 700kgs is achievable), improved avionics, better cockpit, AESA radar, EW suite either as a pod or internal, performance enhancement by reducing drag by reshaping few parts of fuselage, More maintenance friendly internal structure, TRY and create more space for fuel by integration/miniaturisation of avionics and that is where DARE comes in with its IMA.
Once they redesign the internal structure which was over built for the prototypes, the size and number of bulkheads/frames will reduce and that itself will add more useful volume to the fuselage. I am very well aware of what they are doing and I am very confident that they will be able to reduce the empty weight to about 5700kgs easily and may be 5600 with a bit of luck. The 6500kgs empty weight includes about 200kgs of ballasts and two 110kg R-73s.
A 55/90KN kaveri itself will turn this aircraft in to a beast as kaveri is going to be flat rated to ISA+25*C conditions which means extra reserve of 13% thrust. If you reduce the engine thrust of Gripen NG or F-16 by 13%, their TWR will come out worse than that of LCA.

You keep changing the specs on and on, simply because neither you or anybody has a clue about the thrust it finally will have, so why bother with speculations about an engine that is only in development?

As said before, Airbus was hired to reduce the weight of NLCA, not LCA. There is no 1t reduction for LCA

You keep changing the specs on and on, simply because neither you or anybody has a clue about the thrust it finally will have, so why bother with speculations about an engine that is only in development?

Man, another strange attempt to artificially make LCA better than it is? Why stop at F16, Gripen and Rafale then? Imagine specs to make it better than EF or F22.

Click to expand...

I wrote about possibilities, but Kaveri is certain to have minimum wet thrust of 90+KN. The present engine F404IN20 itself delivers close to 89KN wet thrust, so with just weight reduction, things shud look good for LCAMk1A. One more point, if the fuel figure remains 2.5 tons the combat TWR will be- 9050/(5750+1250+1000)=1.13.
The calculations are based in empty weight of 5750kg, 50% internal fuel-1250kgs, 4xIDerbyER weighing 120kgs each for a total of 480kgs, 2xASRAAM weighing 88kgs each for a total 176kgs and 304kgs for associated pylons and missile rails.

Those figures are complete fantasy! MK1A is based on the same airframe of the MK1, so no additional internal fuel, no increased thrust without at least re-design of the intakes and even the figures for the B70 are wrong.

Click to expand...

True to some extend, but what you miss is the LCA Airintake design is optimized for the Kaveri specs, and not for the GE F404/414 engine.

If that would be true, we never would have considered EJ200. GE officially rates the 404 IN20 at 85kN.

The rest is bassless.

Click to expand...

The uprated IN20 engine produces 89KN thrust. Take it or leave it bro. The GE engine page contains old information.
I do not think there can be any better source than this,http://tejas.gov.in/specifications/powerplant.html
I took it to be 89Kn but the actual thrust is 89.9KN. so the TWR of LCA is even better at 1.14.

True to some extend, but what you miss is the LCA Airintake design is optimized for the Kaveri specs, and not for the GE F404/414 engine.

Click to expand...

True, but for Kaveri K9 with the initial goal of 81kN thrust. K10 is aimed at 90kN and then requires higher airflow, just as in the case of EJ200, or GE414. So there is no going around that re-design and most likely some internal changes to fit the new engines too. Add the extended airframe for avionics and EW, probably more internal fuel and you have a pretty new fighter.
The only good thing is, IN is out and NLCA won't interfere with LCAs development anymore.

As time goes, most of the 17 we have used for development aircraft will be removed and transferred to operational units. However, the 24 engines are for the SP-1 to 20 jets, with reserves.

To get the second squadron, we need to place orders in 2018. And we have enough engines to make up for any delay in delivery. HAL is a special entity and will get away with second hand engines, as they have done for MKI also.

True, but for Kaveri K9 with the initial goal of 81kN thrust. K10 is aimed at 90kN and then requires higher airflow, just as in the case of EJ200, or GE414. So there is no going around that re-design and most likely some internal changes to fit the new engines too. Add the extended airframe for avionics and EW, probably more internal fuel and you have a pretty new fighter.
The only good thing is, IN is out and NLCA won't interfere with LCAs development anymore.

Click to expand...

Kaveri from the very beginning was designed for a wet thrust of just 75KN. Later they decided to change the whole stuff and make it a 55/90 kn engine but they have been able to achieve is just 52/81Kn due to the problems of fan pressure ratios and afterburner section. I am very confident that with French support we will have a very good engine meeting the requirements of LCA. Kaveri as and when certified, will be the only fighter engine with flat rating. No other fighter engine to my knowledge has ever been flat rated.

As time goes, most of the 17 we have used for development aircraft will be removed and transferred to operational units. However, the 24 engines are for the SP-1 to 20 jets, with reserves.

To get the second squadron, we need to place orders in 2018. And we have enough engines to make up for any delay in delivery. HAL is a special entity and will get away with second hand engines, as they have done for MKI also.

Click to expand...

first 8 were F404F2J3 with 81.3KN thrust, next 17 were IN20 with 84KN thrust followed by uprated IN20 engines with 89.9KN thrust.